Hotfoot Fees and Charges 2009-10

Call-in

Chairman, Members

Can I first say that I have always been 100% supportive of the Hotfoot, Community and Parish Play schemes?  This Council has supported delivery across the Borough since the early days when equipment was delivered to Village and Community Halls to support the fun activities both indoors and outside.

I was also instrumental with officers in helping to secure Children’s Fund money and this has supported for six years the provision of holiday play schemes in our most challenging wards. This ended last year although the Children’s fund has continued with the Government grant now going centrally to the County. Throughout this time I also strongly supported the Safer Maidstone Partnership’s involvement and funding as there was clear evidence that crime levels fell during periods of operation.

What I can’t support is the likely demise of the programme and it success as a result of excessive increases in charges of some 21%, and 21%, 25% for some charges, is excessive, at a time when parents are struggling to pay the rent or are in fear of repossession.

I am asking Scrutiny to support this Call-in and ask that other ways be found of addressing this small budget consideration.

In sharing my serious concerns with members about this dramatic increase in fees that the Cabinet Member has agreed I would first like to ask a few questions that are relevant and if considered by officers may help the Cabinet Member amend the outcome.

First I need to say it has been very misleading in both the forward plan shared with our partners and the public under purpose- to state - To consider a slight increase in fees for the Hotfoot scheme from Summer onwards and in 1.7.1 in the report under Financial – to state -The Slight increase in charges should enable the section to achieve its income targets for 2009-10. If 21% is slight what would be small or moderate. Yes it is misleading.

There is evidence in the report that the current shortfall is the result of fewer people using the scheme which if that is the case should have been identified post summer when the greatest commitment is made by parents and carers and this frankly should have been addressed when preparing the Annual Council budget.

It is interesting that when the expected profit from the market income fell, due to lower fees and car park income, £50.000 was found to prop up the profit. Leisure found £10.000 from existing budgets to address the over spends on the new Art Centre. £10.000 was found for each of three years for the River Festival and £15.000 on top of sponsorship for St. George’s Day Celebrations this week.

I could go on but the most significant review of fees worth noting is the report awaiting a decision about Environmental Services and I quote ‘The charges for garden sacks- actually meet less than 50% of the annual cost (approximately£600k), similarly to the income received from bulky item collections only cover 48% of the annual cost (approdximately£150k) However the current downturn has had a detrimental effect on uptake of the service- it is therefore NOT recommended that the prices for the bulky service be increased. Instead, the current pricing structure should be maintained’.

If this Council can meet the shortfall of this essential service then I am sure it can meet the shortfall in respect of the essential Hotfoot service.

One should also ask how much money is given by the Safer Maidstone Partnership, has that increased, should we ask for member devolved budgets to support main steam Hotfoot when we also ask for support for the Hotfoot charity to support carers. Should we not consider Rewind and Freefall income these are all marketed as a single product in a glossy brochure?  What are the community playgroup financial arrangements?  Cost of training etc.

Should not the school cluster pay for the costs of the hall if they have the benefit of the Children’s fund money-

What I do know is that this council should not recommend any increase in Hotfoot fees this year and that a full review and consultation be undertaken.

The Leader did email me about this call in suggesting that if I had raised my concerns earlier somehow the decision would have been changed. Well firstly that was not possible due to my personal family commitments at that time but either one reacted to an average 21% increase set against a 1% pay rise, possible repossession or unemployment or not. Council Tax is capped at 5%

In these difficult times of recession we need to help parents and carers and seek to ensure we respond to the challenges they face.

Members of Scrutiny, I ask you to support this call in and recommend that the Cabinet find other ways of addressing this shortfall, to remove the burden of a 21% hike in fees faced by parents and carers this year.

I would like to end by quoting Paul Carter Leader of the KCC writing in Around Kent where he says ‘During these difficult times of recession and rising unemployment, when people are worried  about the threat of redundancy, keeping there business afloat and meeting household costs, any increases in bills are going to be really unwelcome.

Thank you for listening

Cllr. Mike FitzGerald

Reflections on the Briefing Note

This just strengthens the case for a review and no increase

The Budget savings were agreed to keep the Council Tax a 4.46 and identified within each Portfolio not to come back to Members in the form of increased fees and charges later.

The OFSTED requirements, the cost of which needs an explanation, were no part of the original report as no background documents were identified and it was not referred to in the decision paper.

Frankly it is misleading as it has a minimum effect on overall costs and now appears as some late justification for the high increase.

Where are the accounts that show the spending to support the play schemes?

What are the costs of Materials, Clothing, and Equipment?

What is the cost of use of each school?

Do Breakfast Clubs and After School Clubs have the same room costs to meet?

Are not Community Schools there to serve the community?

What are the training costs?

What are the advertising costs?

How much Safer Maidstone Partnership money supports the schemes?

How much devolved budget supports the schemes?

How is any surplus calculated? If 2008-9 is £19.268 and estimated increase £2.730 we have £21.998 against an estimated £24.965. Bearing in mind the Easter Activities have already taken place at existing prices.

The call-in has importantly identified the correct fee charges but It seriously concerns me that the paper highlight in bold the proposed increase of 8.9% while hiding the 15.30% for discounted rates which affect our most vulnerable group of parents and cares.

The 5-20 provision is identified because they are the groups that are promoted in a 4 colour brochure printed 2-3 times a years that includes Rewind and Freefall.

What are the Costs of printing? Are charges made for advertising?

Are there profits from Freefall and Rewind?

Members of Scrutiny, I ask you to support this call in and recommend that the Cabinet find other ways of addressing this shortfall, to remove the burden of the hike in fees faced by parents and carers this year.

Cllr. Mike FitzGerald